|
But you are arguing the GM can't. If the player with a 7 Charisma says they are beautiful and wants people to find them beautiful, you are saying that the GM should not be able to say "No, you can't seduce the guard, he finds you creepy because you have a 7 Charisma."That's not what I am saying at all, but feel free to continue trying to twist my argument and put words in my mouth.
This is how that interaction would play out:
Player: "I am a pretty girl, I want to go flirt with that guard."
GM: "Alright, go for it."
Player: "I approach him, walking sexy, and start talking to him and flirting."
GM: "Let's have a roll shall we. Give me a X roll." (X = Diplomacy or CHA check, or whatever.)
Player: Rolls 1d20 +X -Y. (X equals any positive modifiers applicable. Y equals any penalties, to include low CHA penalty.)
GM: "The guard doesn't seem taken by you. He politely tells you he is busy and asks that you move along."
And I am saying Diplomacy isn't for seduction, it's for diplomatic interactions. You can, at best, make the Guard helpful.
Helpful is not enraptured.
|
|
Laori Vaus is the best example someone has given so far to illustrate this, ironically from your side.
She is cute, but she is also unsettling to those around her. People don't like her, despite her...
And yet she keeps endearing herself to PCs.
Should I have told my players "NO! YOU CAN'T LIKE HER!"
If you weren't playing her as creepy, you weren't playing her as written.
|
|
The rule for diplomacy allows you to move people up and down that scale.
That is all it does. That is what the check is for.
Both true. But neither of those points refutes the fact that Charm Person and Elixir of Love refer back to the "friendly" attitude category which can be achieved by Diplomacy.
To say it did more than that would be like saying Jump does more than make you jump, or climb does more than make you climb.Exactly right, but "how that jump looks" is up to the people at the table; the GM and the Player involved.
Diplomacy allows you to make people go up or down on the Hostile to Friendly scale.And the only things provided in the Diplomacy description about those points on the scale are mechanics of how to make requests of the target. There is no flavor text to describe what that interaction must look like.
It doesn't make them like you, it just makes them see your point of view.
Assuming you will agree the scale was based on the 3.5 interpretations, which I feel good about saying it was...
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
Charm Person and Elixir of Love do make people like you, and they both refer back to "friendly" which is only described in Diplomacy. I am not saying that Diplomacy HAS to make people like you, or that you HAVE to be liked in order to use Diplomacy. I am saying that people liking you is one possible outcome of some specific types of Diplomacy interactions.
Elixir of Love makes them enamored with you.
"This sweet-tasting liquid causes the character drinking it to become enraptured with the first creature she sees after consuming the draft (as charm person—the drinker must be a humanoid of Medium or smaller size, Will DC 14 negates). The charm effect wears off in 1d3 hours."
This more proves my point than disproves it. Charming a person with diplomacy, isn't the same as making them enraptured.
Even Charm Person isn't equivalent, as it is a spell that makes them a "trusted friend and ally"
Diplomacy isn't a spell, it's a skill. A successful diplomacy roll doesn't make them a trusted friend, just potentially an ally.
I realize that Diplomacy isn't magic. I am not saying it is. I am saying that two types of relationships are described by those magic items (deep friendships, and lovers infatuation) and are both attributed to the "friendly" attitude category. Thus the "friendly" attitude category can be used to describe those relationships. If that is true then Diplomacy, which can raise people to the "friendly" attitude category, is then a legitimate method of starting those types of relationships. Is it magic? NO, obviously not. Will a successful Diplomacy check make someone regard you as a friend they have trusted for years? NO, that would be stupid. Will a successful Diplomacy check make a girl instantly fall hopelessly in love with you? NO, again, it's not magic. But COULD a successful Diplomacy check that is successful coupled with a well played and positive RP scenario result in the beginning of such a relationship? Why not, Diplomacy allows you to bring people to the "friendly" attitude category and the "friendly" attitude category is used to describe friendships and love in other portions of the book.
|
If you weren't playing her as creepy, you weren't playing her as written.Laori Vaus is the best example someone has given so far to illustrate this, ironically from your side.
She is cute, but she is also unsettling to those around her. People don't like her, despite her...
And yet she keeps endearing herself to PCs.
Should I have told my players "NO! YOU CAN'T LIKE HER!"
I have most certainly been playing her as creepy as hell. And she has unsettled the PCs.
They still want to give that crazy girl hugs and make her life better.
Crazy that, characters behaving not in accordance to flat numbers, but instead acting like people.
Charm Person and Elixir of Love do make people like you, and they both refer back to "friendly" which is only described in Diplomacy. I am not saying that Diplomacy HAS to make people like you, or that you HAVE to be liked in order to use Diplomacy. I am saying that people liking you is one possible outcome of some specific types of Diplomacy interactions.
Elixir of Love makes them enamored with you.
"This sweet-tasting liquid causes the character drinking it to become enraptured with the first creature she sees after consuming the draft (as charm person—the drinker must be a humanoid of Medium or smaller size, Will DC 14 negates). The charm effect wears off in 1d3 hours."
This more proves my point than disproves it. Charming a person with diplomacy, isn't the same as making them enraptured.
Even Charm Person isn't equivalent, as it is a spell that makes them a "trusted friend and ally"
Diplomacy isn't a spell, it's a skill. A successful diplomacy roll doesn't make them a trusted friend, just potentially an ally.
Wrong,
Charm Person states, "The charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)." In other words, it's defining "friendly" and "trusted friend and ally" as synonyms.
Diplomacy, incidentally, can go even beyond what Charm Person can give - because it can go beyond "friendly" to "helpful".
Exactly my point.
|
|
If you weren't playing her as creepy, you weren't playing her as written.Laori Vaus is the best example someone has given so far to illustrate this, ironically from your side.
She is cute, but she is also unsettling to those around her. People don't like her, despite her...
And yet she keeps endearing herself to PCs.
Should I have told my players "NO! YOU CAN'T LIKE HER!"
I have most certainly been playing her as creepy as hell.
They still want to give that crazy girl hugs and make her life better.
Crazy that, characters behaving not in accordance to flat numbers, but instead acting like people.
Yes. And she is a follower of Zon Kuthon who loves to torture people, and talk about it at length so most people she interacts with (NPC) will find her creepy as hell.
And if you aren't playing that aspect, your choice. But as written, very clear.
|
|
If you weren't playing her as creepy, you weren't playing her as written.Laori Vaus is the best example someone has given so far to illustrate this, ironically from your side.
She is cute, but she is also unsettling to those around her. People don't like her, despite her...
And yet she keeps endearing herself to PCs.
Should I have told my players "NO! YOU CAN'T LIKE HER!"
I have most certainly been playing her as creepy as hell.
They still want to give that crazy girl hugs and make her life better.
Crazy that, characters behaving not in accordance to flat numbers, but instead acting like people.
Yes. And she is a follower of Zon Kuthon who loves to torture people, and talk about it at length so most people she interacts with (NPC) will find her creepy as hell.
And if you aren't playing that aspect, your choice. But as written, very clear.
And, again, I have been playing that aspect up.
Where are you getting that I am not?
She's also got the OCD in my game, to add to her problems.
And I am saying Diplomacy isn't for seduction, it's for diplomatic interactions. You can, at best, make the Guard helpful.
Helpful is not enraptured.
Based on your opinion, not anything in RAW.
Diplomacy is for shifting people up and down the scale, as you have mentioned so frequently. That is the mechanic. That is what Diplomacy does.
Diplomacy, however, doesn't describe the flavor of what "friendly" or "helpful" can or cannot represent. However, two possible flavor descriptions for "friendly" are given with Charm Person and Elixir of Love, both of which say treat the target's attitude as "friendly."
|
|
Exactly my point.Charm Person and Elixir of Love do make people like you, and they both refer back to "friendly" which is only described in Diplomacy. I am not saying that Diplomacy HAS to make people like you, or that you HAVE to be liked in order to use Diplomacy. I am saying that people liking you is one possible outcome of some specific types of Diplomacy interactions.
Elixir of Love makes them enamored with you.
"This sweet-tasting liquid causes the character drinking it to become enraptured with the first creature she sees after consuming the draft (as charm person—the drinker must be a humanoid of Medium or smaller size, Will DC 14 negates). The charm effect wears off in 1d3 hours."
This more proves my point than disproves it. Charming a person with diplomacy, isn't the same as making them enraptured.
Even Charm Person isn't equivalent, as it is a spell that makes them a "trusted friend and ally"
Diplomacy isn't a spell, it's a skill. A successful diplomacy roll doesn't make them a trusted friend, just potentially an ally.
Wrong,
Charm Person states, "The charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)." In other words, it's defining "friendly" and "trusted friend and ally" as synonyms.
Diplomacy, incidentally, can go even beyond what Charm Person can give - because it can go beyond "friendly" to "helpful".
One is a magical effect that wears off. One is a social interactions.
Either way "Helpful" does not equal "Trusted Ally"
Assuming we can all agree the 3.5 diplomacy was the source for defining the scale
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/skillsAll.html#diplomacy
Attitude Means Possible Actions
Hostile Will take risks to hurt you Attack, interfere, berate, flee
Unfriendly Wishes you ill Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult
Indifferent Doesn’t much care Socially expected interaction
Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aid
None of these are the same as liking you. With Diplomacy, if you can convince them you share goals, they will do the above. That is it.
With Charm Person, they are magically compelled and get an opposed charisma check to do anything they wouldn't normally do.
Completely different.
The rule for diplomacy allows you to move people up and down that scale.
That is all it does. That is what the check is for.
Both true. But neither of those points refutes the fact that Charm Person and Elixir of Love refer back to the "friendly" attitude category which can be achieved by Diplomacy.
To say it did more than that would be like saying Jump does more than make you jump, or climb does more than make you climb.Exactly right, but "how that jump looks" is up to the people at the table; the GM and the Player involved.
Diplomacy allows you to make people go up or down on the Hostile to Friendly scale.And the only things provided in the Diplomacy description about those points on the scale are mechanics of how to make requests of the target. There is no flavor text to describe what that interaction must look like.
It doesn't make them like you, it just makes them see your point of view.Assuming you will agree the scale was based on the 3.5 interpretations, which I feel good about saying it was...
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
Charm Person and Elixir of Love do make people like you, and they both refer back to "friendly" which is only described in Diplomacy. I am not saying that Diplomacy HAS to make people like you, or that you HAVE to be liked in order to use Diplomacy. I am saying that people liking you is one possible outcome of some specific types of Diplomacy interactions.
Fix your quotes so I know what you are trying to say.
|
|
If you weren't playing her as creepy, you weren't playing her as written.Laori Vaus is the best example someone has given so far to illustrate this, ironically from your side.
She is cute, but she is also unsettling to those around her. People don't like her, despite her...
And yet she keeps endearing herself to PCs.
Should I have told my players "NO! YOU CAN'T LIKE HER!"
I have most certainly been playing her as creepy as hell.
They still want to give that crazy girl hugs and make her life better.
Crazy that, characters behaving not in accordance to flat numbers, but instead acting like people.
Yes. And she is a follower of Zon Kuthon who loves to torture people, and talk about it at length so most people she interacts with (NPC) will find her creepy as hell.
And if you aren't playing that aspect, your choice. But as written, very clear.
And, again, I have been playing that aspect up.
Where are you getting that I am not?
She's also got the OCD in my game, to add to her problems.
I am saying NPC's are controlled by you, and should not like her due to her being creepy. PC's can do as they like, however they like.
|
|
And I am saying Diplomacy isn't for seduction, it's for diplomatic interactions. You can, at best, make the Guard helpful.
Helpful is not enraptured.
Based on your opinion, not anything in RAW.
Diplomacy is for shifting people up and down the scale, as you have mentioned so frequently. That is the mechanic. That is what Diplomacy does.
Diplomacy, however, doesn't describe the flavor of what "friendly" or "helpful" can or cannot represent. However, two possible flavor descriptions for "friendly" are given with Charm Person and Elixir of Love, both of which say treat the target's attitude as "friendly."
Based on the citations you gave regarding Elixir of Love, obviously there is a distinction between the effects of the elixir and that of charm person.
And as I cited twice, you can pull out your good old 3.5 handbook to see exactly what they defined "Helpful" - "Hostile" to be.
|
|
"Helpful" does not equal "Trusted Ally"That's right. "Friendly" means "Trusted Ally". "Helpful" is a step beyond that.
No. Again.
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/skillsAll.html#diplomacy
Trusted ally is a result of the spell, not the condition of being friendly. Friendly means someone will "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate"
I am friendly with my neighbor, he isn't my trusted ally.
|
|
I am saying NPC's are controlled by you, and should not like her due to her being creepy. PC's can do as they like, however they like.If you weren't playing her as creepy, you weren't playing her as written.Laori Vaus is the best example someone has given so far to illustrate this, ironically from your side.
She is cute, but she is also unsettling to those around her. People don't like her, despite her...
And yet she keeps endearing herself to PCs.
Should I have told my players "NO! YOU CAN'T LIKE HER!"
I have most certainly been playing her as creepy as hell.
They still want to give that crazy girl hugs and make her life better.
Crazy that, characters behaving not in accordance to flat numbers, but instead acting like people.
Yes. And she is a follower of Zon Kuthon who loves to torture people, and talk about it at length so most people she interacts with (NPC) will find her creepy as hell.
And if you aren't playing that aspect, your choice. But as written, very clear.
And, again, I have been playing that aspect up.
Where are you getting that I am not?
She's also got the OCD in my game, to add to her problems.
....where did I say these were NPCs reacting to her?
One is a magical effect that wears off. One is a social interactions.
Either way "Helpful" does not equal "Trusted Ally"
Assuming we can all agree the 3.5 diplomacy was the source for defining the scale
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/skillsAll.html#diplomacy
Attitude Means Possible Actions
Hostile Will take risks to hurt you Attack, interfere, berate, flee
Unfriendly Wishes you ill Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult
Indifferent Doesn’t much care Socially expected interaction
Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aidNone of these are the same as liking you. With Diplomacy, if you can convince them you share goals, they will do the above. That is it.
With Charm Person, they are magically compelled and get an opposed charisma check to do anything they wouldn't normally do.
Completely different.
Additionally:
1) Those were just guidelines for general attitude, not all inclusive rules on what types of relationships can or cannot be allowed as part of it.
2) Those guidelines were removed from PF in favor of letting players and DMs decide their own RP fluff.
3) The descriptions of Friendly and Helpful you posted sure sound like friends and loved ones to me. I could not describe anyone I have known who didn't like me with those words.
Friendly = Wishes you well, chat with you, Seriously ciretose? Are you really arguing that someone described as "friendly" and who "wishes you well" and who will sit down and "chat" with you, CANNOT be your friend. That's stupid. And are you seriously arguing that someone who is absolutely not your friend, and in fact would kill you under any other circumstances, "wishes you well" and would have a "chat" with you to pass the time. That is also stupid.
Do I think Diplomacy can allow enemies to work together for a common goal? Yes. Do I think it can make people who don't care a lick about you good or ill work with you for an advantage? Yes. Do I think you can develop RP friendships and love interests with Diplomacy? Yes.
|
|
I am saying NPC's are controlled by you, and should not like her due to her being creepy. PC's can do as they like, however they like.If you weren't playing her as creepy, you weren't playing her as written.Laori Vaus is the best example someone has given so far to illustrate this, ironically from your side.
She is cute, but she is also unsettling to those around her. People don't like her, despite her...
And yet she keeps endearing herself to PCs.
Should I have told my players "NO! YOU CAN'T LIKE HER!"
I have most certainly been playing her as creepy as hell.
They still want to give that crazy girl hugs and make her life better.
Crazy that, characters behaving not in accordance to flat numbers, but instead acting like people.
Yes. And she is a follower of Zon Kuthon who loves to torture people, and talk about it at length so most people she interacts with (NPC) will find her creepy as hell.
And if you aren't playing that aspect, your choice. But as written, very clear.
And, again, I have been playing that aspect up.
Where are you getting that I am not?
She's also got the OCD in my game, to add to her problems.
....where did I say these were NPCs reacting to her?
I feel like we are having two different discussions here...
She is creepy as hell. If your PC's like her, that is fine. Does not mean she isn't inherently, creepy as hell.
If she tries to interact with NPC's, the NPC's should find her creepy as hell. If the party sends her to seduce a guard, the guard should find her creepy as hell. If she goes to the bar to pick up guys, most will find her creepy as hell. If she is walking down the street, small children will find her somewhat unsettling and passerby will likely avoid her.
This is what she is described as.
If you make a character with a negative charisma, and want to play it like it doesn't have a negative charisma, I don't agree with that.
Anything else you think I am saying is you reading into things.
|
|
One is a magical effect that wears off. One is a social interactions.
Either way "Helpful" does not equal "Trusted Ally"
Assuming we can all agree the 3.5 diplomacy was the source for defining the scale
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/skillsAll.html#diplomacy
Attitude Means Possible Actions
Hostile Will take risks to hurt you Attack, interfere, berate, flee
Unfriendly Wishes you ill Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult
Indifferent Doesn’t much care Socially expected interaction
Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aidNone of these are the same as liking you. With Diplomacy, if you can convince them you share goals, they will do the above. That is it.
With Charm Person, they are magically compelled and get an opposed charisma check to do anything they wouldn't normally do.
Completely different.
Additionally:
1) Those were just guidelines for general attitude, not all inclusive rules on what types of relationships can or cannot be allowed as part of it.
2) Those guidelines were removed from PF in favor of letting players and DMs decide their own RP fluff.
3) The descriptions of Friendly and Helpful you posted sure sound like friends and loved ones to me. I could not describe anyone I have known who didn't like me with those words.
So to be clear, your current argument is that the old RAW was just a guideline, and since it wasn't specifically included as written into the pathfinder core book, your new interpretation of what it means over rides any old interpretation.
Is the correct?
You keep saying others are trying to make up rules, then we cite the rules and if you don't agree with them you call them guidelines.
Just house rule it for your game if you want it that way.
And I am saying Diplomacy isn't for seduction, it's for diplomatic interactions. You can, at best, make the Guard helpful.
Helpful is not enraptured.
Based on your opinion, not anything in RAW.
Diplomacy is for shifting people up and down the scale, as you have mentioned so frequently. That is the mechanic. That is what Diplomacy does.
Diplomacy, however, doesn't describe the flavor of what "friendly" or "helpful" can or cannot represent. However, two possible flavor descriptions for "friendly" are given with Charm Person and Elixir of Love, both of which say treat the target's attitude as "friendly."
Based on the citations you gave regarding Elixir of Love, obviously there is a distinction between the effects of the elixir and that of charm person.
Yeah, one makes you a trusted friend and one makes you infatuated. Both are placed under the mechanical category of "friendly." The mechanical category of "friendly" can be reached with Diplomacy. Hence, deep friendships and love interests can be represented by a series of successful Diplomacy checks and RP exchanges.
And as I cited twice, you can pull out your good old 3.5 handbook to see exactly what they defined "Helpful" - "Hostile" to be.
Let's stick to PF stuff shall we, although the quote from 3.5 doesn't really hurt my argument at all. All it does is list a series of traits. Those traits could be found in any number of relationship types. So any relationship type that could include those traits could be formed with Diplomacy if the RP scenario warranted. But the fact is, where 3.5 and PF differ, PF takes precedence.
|
|
Let's stick to PF stuff shall we, although the quote from 3.5 doesn't really hurt my argument at all. All it does is list a series of traits. Those traits could be found in any number of relationship types. So any relationship type that could include those traits could be formed with Diplomacy if the RP scenario warranted. But the fact is, where 3.5 and PF differ, PF takes precedence.
You are only taking this stand because the 3.5 Diplomacy directly contradicts your argument.
And you are trying to ignore that Elixir and Charm are spells, which magically "Charm" people against there will.
Not to mention you seem to be overlooking that if the spell description adds "trusted friend" or "enamored" it is because that effect is above and beyond what would be included in being described as "Friendly".
Otherwise, they would just describe it as "same as diplomacy".
The fact that they didn't, means those effects are greater than what would be included if they were just friendly.
|
|
So to be clear, your current argument is that the old RAW was just a guideline, and since it wasn't specifically included as written into the pathfinder core book, your new interpretation of what it means over rides any old interpretation.Is the correct?
You keep saying others are trying to make up rules, then we cite the rules and if you don't agree with them you call...
*I'm* saying that the rules in Pathfinder contradict the rules in 3X, so we should go with the rules in Pathfinder.
WHERE THERE IS SUCH A CONTRADICTION, going with the 3X rules and claiming "see? we're following the rules", makes as much sense as going with Shadowrun rules and claimng "see? we're following the rules".
There is no new rule in Pathfinder that contradicts anything.
The descriptions are the same, the only difference was the old books provided examples, and the new ones didn't.
If they provided different examples, that would be a contradiction.
So to be clear, your current argument is that the old RAW was just a guideline, and since it wasn't specifically included as written into the pathfinder core book, your new interpretation of what it means over rides any old interpretation.
To be clear my argument is that you have been backed into a corner with PF rules and are now trying to pull 3.5 into it hoping it will support your case. I don't care, I can still argue my point, and did here:
Friendly = Wishes you well, chat with you, Seriously ciretose? Are you really arguing that someone described as "friendly" and who "wishes you well" and who will sit down and "chat" with you, CANNOT be your friend. That's stupid. And are you seriously arguing that someone who is absolutely not your friend, and in fact would kill you under any other circumstances, "wishes you well" and would have a "chat" with you to pass the time. That is also stupid.
Do I think Diplomacy can allow enemies to work together for a common goal? Yes. Do I think it can make people who don't care a lick about you good or ill work with you for an advantage? Yes. Do I think you can develop RP friendships and love interests with Diplomacy? Yes.
Which, I see you ignored.
You keep saying others are trying to make up rules, then we cite the rules and if you don't agree with them you call them guidelines.
To be specific I said they were a guideline of "TRAITS" that people will have toward you when they fall into those specific categories. And those "TRAITS" or "QUALITIES" or "ACTIONS" can be used to describe any number of relationship types. And people who have any number of relationship views toward a PC can justify taking those types of actions.
You are the one who is saying "Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate" and "Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aid" couldn't possibly describe an actual friendship or love interest. Which, again, is stupid.
|
|
I already quoted the Charm Person description where "Friendly" is defined in Pathfinder. Pathfinder means "Trusted Ally". It's my understanding that you are trying to use 3X to claim it means something completely different.
So to be clear, your current argument is that the old RAW was just a guideline, and since it wasn't specifically included as written into the pathfinder core book, your new interpretation of what it means over rides any old interpretation.Is the correct?
You keep saying others are trying to make up rules, then we cite the rules and if you don't agree with them you call...
*I'm* saying that the rules in Pathfinder contradict the rules in 3X, so we should go with the rules in Pathfinder.
WHERE THERE IS SUCH A CONTRADICTION, going with the 3X rules and claiming "see? we're following the rules", makes as much sense as going with Shadowrun rules and claimng "see? we're following the rules".
There is no new rule in Pathfinder that contradicts anything.
The descriptions are the same, the only difference was the old books provided examples, and the new ones didn't.
If they provided different examples, that would be a contradiction.
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/spellsC.html#charm-person
Charm person is a spell that makes someone a trusted ally IN ADDITION to making them friendly. It had the same wording in 3.5, which also used the chart I posted.
This isn't a change from 3.5.
|
|
You are the one who is saying "Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate" and "Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aid" couldn't possibly describe an actual friendship or love interest. Which, again, is stupid.
Actually I am the one citing rules that say "Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate" and "Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aid"
You are the one saying that these things do imply friendship and/or love interest.
I am saying you can have one without the other, not that they are mutually exclusive.
I don't know how you date, but with my wife the courtship wasn't about diplomatic negotiation. It was about being charming and charismatic.
You are only taking this stand because the 3.5 Diplomacy directly contradicts your argument.
Really? Because I clearly addressed your 3.5 quote HERE 1 and you promptly ignored it. So it would seem you are the one who is having trouble defending your point.
And you are trying to ignore that Elixir and Charm are spells, which magically "Charm" people against there will.
Again, I have already addressed this, HERE 2, and again you failed to counter it.
Not to mention you seem to be overlooking that if the spell description adds "trusted friend" or "enamored" it is because that effect is above and beyond what would be included in being described as "Friendly".
Not at all, that is addressed in "HERE 2."
Otherwise, they would just describe it as "same as diplomacy".
They do. They say "Treat target's attitude as friendly." which is a reference to the Diplomacy friendly.
I already quoted the Charm Person description where "Friendly" is defined in Pathfinder. Pathfinder means "Trusted Ally". It's my understanding that you are trying to use 3X to claim it means something completely different.
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/spellsC.html#charm-person
Charm person is a spell that makes someone a trusted ally IN ADDITION to making them friendly. It had the same wording in 3.5, which also used the chart I posted.
This isn't a change from 3.5.
Actually, the description did change from 3.5 to PF so... CHECK YOUR FACTS.
|
|
The spell description for Charm Person in Pathfinder does -not- say "in addition to being treated as friendly". Rather, it treats "friendly" as synonymous with "trusted ally".
Charm person is a spell that makes someone a trusted ally IN ADDITION to making them friendly. It had the same wording in 3.5, which also used the chart I posted.
It is the same wording from 3.5.
The chart I linked defining what each condition meant is from 3.5
The spell description is giving the DM a frame of reference for use should you attempt diplomacy checks with the charmed person.
If it meant more than that, it would have been included in the descriptions of the effects of each condition.
That logic would have the Elixer of love effect synonymous with the helpful condition, meaning every strong ally the party makes also wants to marry them.
Spell effects are spell effects. There is a chart, with clear definitions, written and provided. Don't get mad at me because you don't agree with the RAW. Just house rule it to your needs.
|
|
Actually, the description did change from 3.5 to PF so... CHECK YOUR FACTS.I already quoted the Charm Person description where "Friendly" is defined in Pathfinder. Pathfinder means "Trusted Ally". It's my understanding that you are trying to use 3X to claim it means something completely different.http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/spellsC.html#charm-person
Charm person is a spell that makes someone a trusted ally IN ADDITION to making them friendly. It had the same wording in 3.5, which also used the chart I posted.
This isn't a change from 3.5.
Copied and Pasted
3.5
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming."
Pathfinder
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming."
Is anyone else reading this thread simply to remind themselves not to get caught up in rules minutae? Shoutout!
Actually I am the one citing rules that say "Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate" and "Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aid"
True.
You are the one saying that these things do imply friendship and/or love interest.
Thank you for again putting words in my mouth but... Untrue. I am saying those descriptions CAN represent love interests and true frienships.
I am saying you can have one without the other, not that they are mutually exclusive.
I never said they were mutually exclusive. I said that true friendships and love are two possibilities that CAN be depicted by Diplomacy.
Excuse me, I posted in reply to what you said, assuming you had actually QUOTED what you wrote and put in ALL CAPS.
Copied and Pasted
3.5
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming."
Pathfinder
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming."
Ah, my bad, so it wasn't that the descriptions have changed between 3.5 and PF, it was that you misquoted and misrepresented the 3.5 description. That will teach me.
Charm person is a spell that makes someone a trusted ally IN ADDITION to making them friendly. It had the same wording in 3.5, which also used the chart I posted.
Good job on misquoting and misrepresentation of the description. It doesn't say "in addition" it say "regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly)."
The chart I linked defining what each condition meant is from 3.5
PF specifically edited that out. But if you want to cling to it, it really doesn't affect my argument, I have addressed it already.
The spell description is giving the DM a frame of reference for use should you attempt diplomacy checks with the charmed person.
You just made my point. The charmed person is "friendly" on the Diplomacy scale. That means that his state, and actions, are within the "friendly" category. (His state being Trusted Friend, and his actions being those in the Diplomacy description) Again, I am not saying a successful Diplomacy makes the target auto-trusted friend like magic. I am saying that a trusted friend is something that falls inside "friendly" so if you get an NPC to "friendly" with social interaction, they could potentially BECOME a trusted friend over time.
You are saying:
Trusted Friend = Friendly but Friendly CAN NOT = Trusted Friend.
If it meant more than that, it would have been included in the descriptions of the effects of each condition.
And if the list contained "best friend" or "love interest" you might be the guy arguing that EVERY Diplomacy roll must result in X relationship between PC and NPC. The conditions you listed were a list of "actions the target can be expected to take" NOT "a list of relationships."
That logic would have the Elixer of love effect synonymous with the helpful condition, meaning every strong ally the party makes also wants to marry them.
I'm saying CAN not HAVE TO ALWAYS. Diplomacy CAN get an NPC to "friendly" and the "friendly" attitude CAN result in friendships and love interests.
Spell effects are spell effects. There is a chart, with clear definitions, written and provided. Don't get mad at me because you don't agree with the RAW. Just house rule it to your needs.
Don't get mad at us because RAW doesn't say what you are trying to make it say. Firstly, the chart was abolished from PF, and secondly it is a list of appropriate ACTIONS that a person at that level should be expected to take; not a list of RELATIONSHIPS that those levels can or cannot depict.
People should just house rule how they want to play. The whole thing is ridiculous.
People do. But that's not the point. You are saying the rules DON'T allow something that the rules actually don't disallow.
Seems like a bunch of people who want to get benefits without penalties.
Back to this again. It has been addressed before. All a low ability score gives you -X to things associated with that ability. Nothing dictates how that has to be represented.